Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Valletta]

The church is called "the bride of Christ" and Scripture speaks of the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb." If any queen is depicted here, it is the church (not the Catholic church but all who believe). This Psalm is talking about two things. An earthly royal wedding about to happen and also a picture of heaven and Jesus and the church. I don't see any reference to the Catholic church, nuns, priests, bishops, etc.

We know Mary and Joseph were betrothed. During bethrothal, any act of infidelity was considered adultery. If you want to say Mary was bound to God, in a spousal way, then you are accusing God of adultery? How could God and Mary have married while she was betrothed to Joseph? Did they then divorce? Joseph married Mary so how did Mary go from being betrothed to Joseph, a bride of God, and then married to Joseph?

Jesus was not illegitimate.

Once again your thinking is backwards. The Holy Trinity is a perfect family. Man, was created by God in God's image, and on earth that Heavenly family is reflected upon us in more than one way. Do not try and define God in terms of man, deciding whether he must be "illegitimate" or "legitimate" or ask if God is committing "adultery" because of how you see and define such things on earth. There may be multiple senses or meanings, for example, in one sense Jesus is our brother, yet a relationship with Jesus, such as to a nun or the Church, can also be bridal in nature. As I have said so many times, God's ways are far about our ways.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Once again your thinking is backwards. The Holy Trinity is a perfect family. Man, was created by God in God's image, and on earth that Heavenly family is reflected upon us in more than one way. Do not try and define God in terms of man, deciding whether he must be "illegitimate" or "legitimate" because of how you see things on earth. In one sense Jesus is our brother, yet a relationship with Jesus, such as to a nun or the Church, can also be bridal in nature. As I have said so many times, God's ways are far about our wary.s

I was responding to another poster who implied that there must be some spousal relationship between the Holy Spirit and Mary, or else Jesus would have been illegitimate. I was simply carrying that line of thought further to show its absurdity by saying that such a thought would have the Holy Spirit committing adultery and breaking up a betrothed marriage. I am not the one who was mixing up things on earth with things in heaven.

I believe the heavenly bride depicted in Psalm 45 is the church, the Bride of Christ, and not Mary.

 

[Valletta]

I was responding to another poster who implied that there must be some spousal relationship between the Holy Spirit and Mary, or else Jesus would have been illegitimate. I was simply carrying that line of thought further to show its absurdity by saying that such a thought would have the Holy Spirit committing adultery and breaking up a betrothed marriage. I am not the one who was mixing up things on earth with things in heaven.

I believe the heavenly bride depicted in Psalm 45 is the church, the Bride of Christ, and not Mary.

What you find absurd in human terms is not absurd in God's plan.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

What you find absurd in human terms is not absurd in God's plan.

The Holy Spirit impregnating a betrothed virgin was unprecedented. Marriage is an institution created by God for humanity and in this life only. To speak of a human, being a spouse of God is speculating about something Scripture doesn't address. God is complete. He does not need a spouse, and marriage is for this life and for humans only. Calling the church the Bride of Christ is an analogy. We know God does not sin. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. They later married. Yet Jesus was not illegitimate. Anything beyond that is speculation.

 

[Jan001]

I understand your argument, but I believe that Biblically, salvation is always being saved from sins committed rather than being saved from committing sins. Part of salvation is admitting to God you are a sinner and need forgiveness. If Mary was born without sin, then she would not need forgiveness. She could thank God for not allowing her to sin, but she would have no need of forgiveness. Salvation is described as an act we initiate (though by the grace of God). We pray for salvation because we need saving. We are asking God to forgive us and give us a new life in Christ as our Lord. If born without sin, Mary never needed to ask for salvation. She never would have confessed to God that she was a sinner in need of forgiveness. Jesus never prayed to be saved as He never sinned. He did not call God the Father His savior. Mary did.

In a human sense we may say someone saved us by preventing us from driving off a cliff or stepping into water fed from a live electrical wire but Biblically, salvation is always from actual sin, not the potential to sin.

Adam committed the sin for which Mary needed salvation. She committed no personal sin. Adam's sin is what cut off mankind's perfect spiritual relationship with God and this sin prevented mankind from ever entering into the third heaven to live with God.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

There were many righteous people who died before Jesus redeemed them from Adam's sin, and that is why they and Lazarus were waiting in a special place with Abraham for Jesus to die and then unlock the gates of heaven for them. Matthew 1:19, Matthew 13:17

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

 

[Jan001]

I believe the Bereans set the example when they checked the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true. Who gave them the authority to question an Apostle? According to Catholics, the Apostles (and you believe their church) alone have the authority to interpret the Scriptures. Yet we have Paul praising the Bereans for doing the opposite and holding him accountable to the written word. Not all things were written down but anything taught that is not written down must agree with what was written down or be rejected. God does not contradict Himself.

These Bereans were not Christians. These Bereans were Jews who practiced Judaism. Paul was definitely not their authority. The Scribes and Pharisees were their authority. Matthew 23:2 Paul visited the Bereans' synagogue and he convinced these Berean Jews, using their own Scriptures, that Jesus Christ was their awaited Messiah.

After these Bereans became Christians, Paul was their authority along with the other apostles chosen by Jesus Christ. Acts 17:10-12, Matthew 18:17, Hebrews 13:17

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:8-9)

Here, Paul says that if "we" (the Apostles) or "an angel from heaven" preach a gospel contrary to what they preached, such a person is to be accursed! Now, how can we follow Paul's instructions if the Apostles are beyond questioning? If they were the final authority, then they could have completely changed Jesus' teachings, and we would have no grounds to disagree. What if, centuries later, faithful Christians thought the church was preaching "a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you"? You say they have no grounds to protest, yet Paul said they should! What recourse do you have if those preaching "another gospel" refuse to repent and teach the truth except to leave? If they have the ecclesiastical authority, you can't force them out. They can ex-communicate you, but you can't ex-communicate them. You call such protests conjecture, but what if it is true?

Once a doctrine has been defined, it cannot ever change. Paul and the apostles taught the same doctrines. If anyone, including them, ever teaches a doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine that was originally taught, he has automatically excommunicated himself. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5
God has his own ways of disciplining a pope, for whatever reason he desires. It may be death.

That is what the protesters believed. I understand you disagree, but in their minds, they had no other choice. Remember, Luther first sought to reform the church. The church forced Luther out, but he did not leave as soon as he had disagreements.

Luther had legitimate grievances against some of the abuses going on in the church. Of course, selling indulgences by rogue priests was not right.

Luther changed his mind on doctrines though. He rejected the Church’s teachings on justification by both faith and works, and he changed the teaching that justification is by "faith and good works" to "faith alone." He even added the word "alone" to his first version of the Bible. It was removed later because of opposition by fellow Lutherans. He rejected the canonical Book of James because it didn't support his new beliefs.

I think Paul made it abundantly clear that we can and should hold those in positions of leadership accountable. No one is above reproach and we all hold each other accountable. It is not just those in authority. Christ did want unity among His followers but not at the expense of truth. We must each judge for ourself if the protesters were right or not but I absolutely believe that had the Biblical right to protest and if those in error did not repent, to depart. Unity never comes at the cost of truth.

At the end of a person's life, Jesus Christ will judge him according to the choices he made.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Adam committed the sin for which Mary needed salvation. She committed no personal sin. Adam's sin is what cut off mankind's perfect spiritual relationship with God and this sin prevented mankind from ever entering into the third heaven to live with God.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man (Adam), and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

There were many righteous people who died before Jesus redeemed them from Adam's sin, and that is why they and Lazarus were waiting in a special place with Abraham for Jesus to die and then unlock the gates of heaven for them. Matthew 1:19, Matthew 13:17

John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

Not to beat a dead horse, but nothing in Scripture teaches that Mary committed no personal sin. As Romans 5:12 says, "death spread to all because all have sinned." That includes Mary.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

These Bereans were not Christians.

These Bereans were Jews who practiced Judaism. Paul was definitely not their authority. The Scribes and Pharisees were their authority. Matthew 23:2 Paul visited the Bereans' synagogue and he convinced these Berean Jews, using their own Scriptures, that Jesus Christ was their awaited Messiah.

After these Bereans became Christians, Paul was their authority along with the other apostles chosen by Jesus Christ. Acts 17:10-12, Matthew 18:17, Hebrews 13:17

As the verse on rejecting Apostles who teach another Gospel, anyone who teaches contrary to Scripture is a false teacher and to be rejected. No one is above the Word of God. I don't recognize the authority of the Pope, the Catholic Magisterium, or my own pastor to teach contrary to Scripture. If I believe their interpretation is wrong, I will reject it. Not because it says something I don't like but because it is not a valid interpretation.

Once a doctrine has been defined, it cannot ever change.

Paul and the apostles taught the same doctrines. If anyone, including them, ever teaches a doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine that was originally taught, he has automatically excommunicated himself. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5
God has his own ways of disciplining a pope, for whatever reason he desires. It may be death.


Luther had legitimate grievances against some of the abuses going on in the church. Of course, selling indulgences by rogue priests was not right.

Luther changed his mind on doctrines though. He rejected the Church’s teachings on justification by both faith and works, and he changed the teaching that justification is by "faith and good works" to "faith alone." He even added the word "alone" to his first version of the Bible. It was removed later because of opposition by fellow Lutherans. He rejected the canonical Book of James because it didn't support his new beliefs.


At the end of a person's life, Jesus Christ will judge him according to the choices he made.

Luther was not perfect. I see no contradiction that salvation is "by faith alone, not by works that no one should boast", and what James teaches. James teaches that saving faith produces fruit, and if it doesn't, such faith should be questioned. Taken with Paul's teachings, James is not saying we are saved by works. You can't have it both ways. Paul says works have no part in our salvation. If you want to include works in salvation then you are contradicting Paul's teachings and God spoke through Paul and does not contradict Himself.

 

[Jan001]

Not to beat a dead horse, but nothing in Scripture teaches that Mary committed no personal sin. As Romans 5:12 says, "death spread to all because all have sinned." That includes Mary.

Did Jesus sin? No. 2 Corinthians 5:21

So, we know for a certainty that "all" has at least one exception.

Scripture is not the authority for God's doctrines. Scripture cannot write itself. It cannot authenticate itself. Scripture cannot interpret itself. Scripture was written by God's church's leaders with the Holy Spirit's help. These leaders alone had God's authority to write it, authenticate it, and interpret it. Scripture is a tool for God's chosen church's leaders to use as a teaching tool. 2 Timothy 3:16, Scripture is not sufficient in itself for God's people to know the full gospel of Jesus Christ. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, John 21:25, 2 Peter 3:16

Jesus appointed his church's leaders and he gave them his authority to proclaim his doctrines. Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:15-19, Matthew 18:17

God's church is hierarchical as is all of his creation. God sent his Holy Spirit to lead his church's apostles and their successors into all truth. John 16:12-14

I agree that we disagree.

 

[Jan001]

As the verse on rejecting Apostles who teach another Gospel, anyone who teaches contrary to Scripture is a false teacher and to be rejected. No one is above the Word of God. I don't recognize the authority of the Pope, the Catholic Magisterium, or my own pastor to teach contrary to Scripture. If I believe their interpretation is wrong, I will reject it. Not because it says something I don't like but because it is not a valid interpretation.

Please see my my previous post.

Luther was not perfect. I see no contradiction that salvation is "by faith alone, not by works that no one should boast", and what James teaches. James teaches that saving faith produces fruit, and if it doesn't, such faith should be questioned. Taken with Paul's teachings, James is not saying we are saved by works. You can't have it both ways. Paul says works have no part in our salvation. If you want to include works in salvation then you are contradicting Paul's teachings and God spoke through Paul and does not contradict Himself.

You claim that Paul teaches that works have no part in our salvation.

I claim that no works of righteousness done within the Law of Moses or any other works of righteousness done outside of the Law of Moses could ever atone for Adam's sin, which we all inherited. Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5

If a person's faith is a faith that does not produce good works, he will not inherit eternal life. Matthew 25:31-46, Galatians 5:6, Matthew 7:19, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Timothy 5:8

John 5:28-30 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

First, God redeems us from Adam's sin by the death of his son as his gift to us. But, after Jesus saves us, we are required to do the good works that his father prepared for us to do if we desire to be counted worthy to inherit eternal life after we die. Colossians 1:9-10, Revelation 3:4

First the gift, and then the commandment. Ultimate salvation has two parts:
Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Did Jesus sin? No. 2 Corinthians 5:21

So, we know for a certainty that "all" has at least one exception.

Scripture is not the authority for God's doctrines. Scripture cannot write itself. It cannot authenticate itself. Scripture cannot interpret itself. Scripture was written by God's church's leaders with the Holy Spirit's help. These leaders alone had God's authority to write it, authenticate it, and interpret it. Scripture is a tool for God's chosen church's leaders to use as a teaching tool. 2 Timothy 3:16, Scripture is not sufficient in itself for God's people to know the full gospel of Jesus Christ. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, John 21:25, 2 Peter 3:16

Jesus appointed his church's leaders and he gave them his authority to proclaim his doctrines. Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:15-19, Matthew 18:17

God's church is hierarchical as is all of his creation. God sent his Holy Spirit to lead his church's apostles and their successors into all truth. John 16:12-14

I agree that we disagree.

Saying that Jesus is an exception to "all" have sinned, and by extension other exceptions (i.e. Mary) must be possible, is a failure to understand the divine nature of Jesus. Jesus was fully God and fully man and one-of-a-kind. As fully God, He could not sin. He was "one of us" only in His humanity. The "all" refers to everyone but Jesus. Those born without a divine nature that makes sin impossible. Jesus was like us in His flesh but not in His spirit and sin is a spiritual disease. There are no exceptions to the "all" and Jesus is not part of that group.

Oral teaching had authority until the written Word was complete. Once it was complete, all oral traditions had to agree with the written Word or be rejected. We all know how stories can change in the telling especially over centuries. Our only sure source of God's revelation is the written Scriptures. When Jesus taught, He quoted OT scriptures. He did not make reference to teachings not found in the OT. Likewise, the NT authors quoted extensively from the OT and did not make reference to things not written down. We all have authority to proclaim what is written down.

Appealing to "not everything Jesus taught was written down" as license to invent new doctrines that contradict the written word doesn't fly. Where does Scripture say the Apostles would have successors? Their office was unique. There are twelve thrones in heaven for the Apostles. There are no thrones for their supposed successors. We have the completed, written word now and that alone is our source of divine revelation. All else must be tested against that. The promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth was not just for the Apostles but to all who put their faith in Jesus Christ.

We most certainly disagree.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Please see my my previous post.

You claim that Paul teaches that works have no part in our salvation.

I claim that no works of righteousness done within the Law of Moses or any other works of righteousness done outside of the Law of Moses could ever atone for Adam's sin, which we all inherited. Galatians 2:16, Titus 3:5

If a person's faith is a faith that does not produce good works, he will not inherit eternal life. Matthew 25:31-46, Galatians 5:6, Matthew 7:19, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Timothy 5:8

John 5:28-30 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

First, God redeems us from Adam's sin by the death of his son as his gift to us. But, after Jesus saves us, we are required to do the good works that his father prepared for us to do if we desire to be counted worthy to inherit eternal life after we die. Colossians 1:9-10, Revelation 3:4

First the gift, and then the commandment. Ultimate salvation has two parts:
Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

As I previously explained, good works follow salvation. They are the fruit of it and evidence for it. They do not save us but if we are saved we will have good works.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

But Jesus didn't marry His mother, nor do we read in the bible that Mary married God the Father.

If you came to the Psalm not knowing about nuns, you wouldn't get the idea of a group of women living together under a Mother Superior. Similarly, you have to do a lot of reading into the Psalm to interpret this verse as referring to Roman Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals and popes:

“Instead of Your fathers shall be Your sons, Whom You shall make princes in all the earth.” (Ps 45:16 NKJV)

The bible nowhere tells us that Mary is the mother of all Christians.

She is the mother of Jesus, without whom there would be no Christians. God, by His own will and authority, did not come to earth springing forth from the grass or coalescing out of the ether. He was born of a woman. She deserves proper honor.
The Bible tells us that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. That is the hypostatic union, God united with flesh. Marriage is a union

As Catholics, we properly understand this union as Mary being daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The church is called "the bride of Christ" and Scripture speaks of the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb." If any queen is depicted here, it is the church (not the Catholic church but all who believe). This Psalm is talking about two things. An earthly royal wedding about to happen and also a picture of heaven and Jesus and the church. I don't see any reference to the Catholic church, nuns, priests, bishops, etc.

We know Mary and Joseph were betrothed. During bethrothal, any act of infidelity was considered adultery. If you want to say Mary was bound to God, in a spousal way, then you are accusing God of adultery? How could God and Mary have married while she was betrothed to Joseph? Did they then divorce? Joseph married Mary so how did Mary go from being betrothed to Joseph, a bride of God, and then married to Joseph?

Jesus was not illegitimate.

Mary and Joseph were betrothed in a consecrated marriage, in that it was not consummated, nor was intended to be. No where in the Bible says it was

Mary was a consecrated virgin but could no longer live in the temple once she started menstruating, as she was considered unclean.

She wanted to live her life consecrated to God, but could not live in the temple. There were no single women in those days. She needed the protection of a man. Joseph also wished to live a life consecrated to God. There was no sexual relations between them

 

[David Lamb]

She is the mother of Jesus, without whom there would be no Christians. God, by His own will and authority, did not come to earth springing forth from the grass or coalescing out of the ether. He was born of a woman. She deserves proper honor.
The Bible tells us that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. That is the hypostatic union, God united with flesh. Marriage is a union

As Catholics, we properly understand this union as Mary being daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit

Certainly Mary was the mother of Jesus, and does deserve honour. We are told that the angel said to her, in answer to her question about how she could have a Son, that the Holy Spirit would come upon her. We are not told that she became God's wife. Indeed Joseph was told to take Mary as his wife. He wasn't told, "No you can't marry her; she is already married - to the Holy Spirit!"

 

[David Lamb]

Mary was a consecrated virgin but could no longer live in the temple once she started menstruating, as she was considered unclean.

She wanted to live her life consecrated to God, but could not live in the temple.

You seem to be implying that she did live in the temple until she started menstruating. Where do we read that in the bible?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mary and Joseph were betrothed in a consecrated marriage, in that it was not consummated, nor was intended to be. No where in the Bible says it was

Mary was a consecrated virgin but could no longer live in the temple once she started menstruating, as she was considered unclean.

She wanted to live her life consecrated to God, but could not live in the temple. There were no single women in those days. She needed the protection of a man. Joseph also wished to live a life consecrated to God. There was no sexual relations between them

Where are we told Mary was a consecrated virgin? Where are we told she lived in the Temple? Plenty of women were single in those days. If they weren't married they lived with family. How do you know there were no sexual relations between Mary and Joseph? While we can't prove there were, we can't prove there weren't. The Bible speaks of Jesus having brothers and sisters and unless one presupposes Mary remained a virgin and never had other children, one would not so quickly dismiss them as cousins or Joseph's from a previous marriage.

 

[Valletta]

Where are we told Mary was a consecrated virgin? Where are we told she lived in the Temple? Plenty of women were single in those days. If they weren't married they lived with family. How do you know there were no sexual relations between Mary and Joseph? While we can't prove there were, we can't prove there weren't. The Bible speaks of Jesus having brothers and sisters and unless one presupposes Mary remained a virgin and never had other children, one would not so quickly dismiss them as cousins or Joseph's from a previous marriage.

It certainly appears Mary had taken a vow of virginity.
Luke 1:34 "How can this be, since I know not man?"

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It certainly appears Mary had taken a vow of virginity.
Luke 1:34 "How can this be, since I know not man?"

That simply means that she was remaining chaste until it was time to consummate the marriage. That is different from a lifelong vow of chastity.

 

[Valletta]

That simply means that she was remaining chaste until it was time to consummate the marriage. That is different from a lifelong vow of chastity.

Nonsense. Why in the world would any girl who was engaged to be married question a prophecy from an Angel of God that she would bear a son?